Talk:OtherSpace:Millennium Combat
Thinking about combat guidelines, especially the guns. Thinking of doing some simple guidelines by weapon type. Pistols: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium: 0 Long: -2 Extreme: -6 Rifles: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium:+1 Long: 0 Extreme: -4 Might play with that based on energy or projectile, but it seems solid enough at a first glance. Would also prevent some of the NJ era broken weapon idiocy. Sergeytov 14:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC) If we're going for simple, might as well have energy and projectile have the same mods. Just give different mods to shooting multiple rounds a round with a machine gun (maybe 0, 0, 0, -2, -5) if it is rifle based (again regardless if it is energy or projectile) and give the sonic weapons different mods (1, -1, -2, -4,-6 for the rifle and 1, -1, -3, -5, -6 for the pistol). I'm just pulling numbers out of my butt. Sniper rifle (-1, -1, 0, 1, 1). I don't care how big of a penalty things get, but I like keeping the bonus to no more than one. UrfOttoMouse 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Thinking some more (darnit, my head hurts) since you're already rolling against their -2 dex, maybe no bonuses and just penalties or 0s. Really just depends on how dead you want people, I guess. UrfOttoMouse 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC) More interesting question I think is: How often will medium+ range combat take place? If almost never, then yeah, mods need cut back on a bit, probably keep +1 for pistol in close (melee) range only, rifles can keep them to short. Sonic'll probably be 0 0 NA NA NA (it's pistol only, and outright restricted to within 20 feet or so), sniper rifle, yeah, -1 -1 0 1 1 sounds right. - Big pattern is it only goes beyond -1 to symbolize 'out of range' generally. Sergeytov 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) At the risk of getting too complex, I'm highly tempted to give pistols a +1 to reaction (now that reaction is back in), if only to give them a real benefit over, say, automatic rifles. Sergeytov 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC) I could see that, but you could also are for different range brackets for pistols as opposed to rifles. As for more comments from me, I'd have to actually get in combat a few times before I had an opinion. UrfOttoMouse 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The reason I comment on it at all is mostly since, let's face it, in my experience with combat most people go close/short range (within 20 feet). Which also considering that rifles tend to have a higher ODF (if memory serves), well, which does the smart one go with? The +1 reaction would emphasize quick, small, easier to handle generally (along with being easier to smuggle). - Without much combat yet, however, this is largely a theoretical point, I do agree. Sergeytov 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Simple-simple-simple-simple. Every single mod is something somebody's got to remember, and a /huge/ swing in power in fudge. So why not set all mods to 0, since your /skills/ are broken out to use the weapons, make the weapons have a max range, and reflect differences in an individual weapon's capabilities with ODF. Instead of multiple shots in a round, +x ODF. Don't roll twenty times. Roll /once/. Since difference in values=damage in the end, you get the nice spread based on skill + ODF without monkeying with modifiers. Why does it have to have a table to figure out what you're rolling, especially when each +/- 1 is a /15% swing/ in statistical ability? Hard to minmax anymore. *edit: Added - In other words, "why should I have to be modded on top of having six different weapon skills, and why can't we streamline combat to one-roll-per-action instead of twenty, putting the differences in the weapons instead of in the mods?" If you're saying 'what about split fire' - just say some weapons have more than one mode. Lower ODF for targetting two targets with one roll. But damn if a sniper rifle's not already got its own skill broken out - why do I further have to have mods to use the danged thing? Ishmael02 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) All those things sound nice on paper, yes. However all mods at 0 make things like tactics utterly meaningless. Why use your head when you can just go in and +taskroll your way through it, is my question? Secondly, if ODF is the only differentiation, along with range, there really isn't much of a difference in weapons and you'll just end up with everyone going with rifles. Longer range and higher ODF. Not a good combo, I don't think. Multiple shots a round being reflected with a higher ODF? I can understand the thought that goes into this one. I also understand that with multiple shots armor becomes a serious upside. Take 30 ODF three times against 20 DDF, we'll assume a success magnitude of 1 each time. 30 + 1*5 -20= 15, three times is 45 damage. To create this by 'simply adding ODF' we'd need an ODF of 70. Let's try again with armor at 30 DDF. 30 + 1*5 -30 =5. Armor mitigates to 15 damage before con. If you just added ODF (let's say we used that 70), it would have been 45 damage instead. Ironically ROFs and lower ODFs make the game more survivable. As for 15% swings? I don't see the trouble with that, really. Sergeytov 18:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC) *shrugs* Tactics are built into the /guns/, man. And nobody uses tactics anyway - cover's been ignored for so long it's nonexistant, and all the table of modifiers for combat does on OS:NJ is make combat grind to a halt as people look up what mod to use this time here - unless one of like three people is officiating. You make cover count for DDF boosts. You make combat deadly if you're not wearing armor. I'm not seeing problems /there/ either. Combat should be fast, bloody, and ultimately something you don't do lightly. That's why there are luck cards. Every time y'all put up a modifier, you slow combat down. You're a numbers guy - you don't see that.. but when a simple combat on NJ comes with three pages of OOCs with people trying to look up what tier this is and what the mod is and how that works at this range with this thing over here and oh what's that vinfo and - but in the end, y'all will do what ya do. I don't understand why the mechanic /has/ to be so complex, or /why/ ODF 70 is a bad thing if you're trying to /avoid/ the gun culture. 'cause damn, if pulling the trigger means you get /hurt/... Zeroing out mods makes combat /fast/. As fast as it /can/ be - one roll, per person, per round. No mods. at its base. And then your situational tactics /can/ be reflected in a handful of mods. got higher ground, +1! Got the drop on somebody, +1! Not seeing how 'tactics' of 'range' are really bothered with anyway. You put your tactics into the GM's imagination, find it easy to balance guns and armor, and then can turn around and make combat quick. Not seeing this supposed downside. Ishmael02 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Zeroing out mods doesn't make combat substantially faster, really. I've been around when mods weren't around, and I've been around when they are. They go about as fast. If you were serious about 'speeding up combat', well, I know a pretty simple solution: You get rid of that posing stuff. - However, I also concede that not everyone is a numbers person, hence why I'm trying to make this reasonably easy to work out. You'll notice this gets rid of looking up vinfo modifiers, tiers, most of the worst offenders that make the system annoying. Innate modifiers, however, play a larger role in skill balance, in that it powers down dexterity so that people do in fact get hurt. - Modifiers aren't the bad guy. Do I think there need to be reasonably few so that they can be known or looked up fast enough? Yes. Do I think they need to be in a very nicely organized place? Yes. Do I think tiers are exceedingly confusing? Yes. Do I think removing the modifiers speeds up combat in a substantial manner compared to how long it takes people to pose anyway? No. Sergeytov 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC) All I know, m' friend, is I've played on NJ, and I've played on Chia, which are diametrical opposites in the mod category. Chia's combat is just flat-out faster. Mostly, yes, because all of that looking-up-of-mods goes away and you end up just concentrating on the poses, using the dice to shape the scene. You've already got a system that basically insures against powerstatting and overpowering by causing substantial loss everywhere. Your balance in the skill system is well-done. So why is it, then, that someone who spends the massive amount of SP to get Pistols to Great suddenly gets penalized over a guy who's spent a minimal amount of XP to get Assault Rifles to Fair? Can't we /assume/ that the competency matters more than the gun's characteristics, that the thing you /earned/ matters more than the thing you /spent credits on/? You've broken the skills out to the point that every person is a specialist, if they go combat. Why does it /have/ to have all the extra junk layered on it? Range doesn't promote tactics - almost every encounter on NJ takes place at short to medium range where everybody pretty much gets bonuses. And what's wrong with people being able to use dex to dodge on M? They started at terrible, they bought it. What'd they trade to get there? Different story, if it started at Fair. I think that numbers are attractive because they /seem/ a simple solution - but numbers are where min/maxing rears its ugly head. In six months, when people are putting new weapons in the system, you think they're going to hold to the paradigm? In 12? What's going to happen is people are going to minmax to /one/ setup - whatever's most effective. Probably Assault Rifles (as they have the widest range of positives and arguably the best damage with best ROF) for combat twinks, pistols for other folks. And, like the existing system, the rest will be ignored. Instead, you could accomplish the /same/ thing in another way - one that doesn't result in half-a-dozen modifiers between gun, situation, time of day, and whatever else people come up with, and open the sandbox to roleplay instead of rollplay. You've already done most of the balancing /in the core skills system/. Why not just keep it there? Ishmael02 18:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Well, a really simple how range matters to tactics. You're a dude with a sniper rifle. You're trying to kill a dude with a pistol. Without range modifiers, you might as well just be another guy with a pistol. I'm not going to get into the combat on OS:NJ, but with an across the board -2 to agility rolls in OS:M you're going to have to use cover. It's nice. A guy with a fair in their weapon skill is going to be rolling the same unmodified as a guy with great agility. If you still want to remove cover, you're even harsher than I am. Combat is going to be slow no matter what's going on. It's just the nature of the beast. Reflecting multiple shots with a higher ODF makes non-automatic more worthless than they are now. Having to roll multiple times at the same mod shouldn't be that much slower than just having to roll once. No split fire. Ever. Unless you are using a machine gun at a close packed formation. Even then you're going to be shooting more than a three round burst to get multiple targets, and we just don't need that kind of weapon. Tactics aren't built into the guns with no range mods other than pure ODF or special abilities which aren't really tactics. That's just using lethal or nonlethal which is a choice more than a tactic or an operating method. Putting tactics into the GMs imagination is what happens when admins run fights, but it is good to have a codified system when PCs do their own thing. At least there is a page for everyone to be on even if they aren't always on it, if you understand what I'm saying. Actually, it doesn't take much to raise different weapons that are based on marksmanship. It's just 15 to get them to good. And another 25 to get the to superb. Now, raising marksmanship itself is costly but so what? Most people are specialists. Being a great shot and being armed with a smooth bore musket against someone with a MK19 automatic grenade launcher and two hours of training isn't going to help you with ye olde flint lock. The military issues assault rifles and not pistols for a reason. If you have the ability to acquire an assault rifle and another person doesn't, they have earned something by being able to get a weapon that the other person doesn't have. In OS:NJ, as far as I know, assault rifles aren't going to be used to level wobbly tables because of their over abundance in the universe. UrfOttoMouse 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Two points, Urf: In M, people who bought Great Agility did so at the cost of something else. They started at terrible, and built a character who can dodge, unlike NJ, where they started at fair. So your across the board -2 mod means that people who chose to be normal are penalized, and people who chose to be exceptional aren't, and 'what's the point in not raising it to legendary, because nobody can avoid anything anyway'... You're basically ignoring the other balancing issue in place in relation to what it once was. As for the sniper v. pistol. Max ranges solve the problem. Sniper: Max range is LOS. Pistol: Max range is 50 yds. Positioning in the scene, done. No mods at all - the pistol /cannot effectively return fire/. Inside of 50 yards? Just a die roll, unless you put the caveat that the sniper /can't/ be used effectively at that range. I wouldn't bother - just make it a die roll. As for the smoothbore musket v. the M390A - the former's now ODF 20, with a 50 yd max range. The latter's now ODF 90 with a radius explosion and a 120yd max range. You roll Archaic Firearms. I roll Grenade Launchers. You're Legendary. I'm Fair. All else being equal, who wins? Gear can matter. But all the mods don't. Ishmael02 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC) to add: Combat gear also has other attributes: Assault Rifles can't be concealed. Pistols are less intimidating and more compact. yaddayaddayadda - Nobody should select gear based purely on 'punch' - from a top-down view, the M-16 and the AK-47 are virtually identical weapons.. they're not. They have advantages and disadvantages, reputations and service history. From a game mechanic point of view, though, they're pretty darned near identical. So in-game, the 'fluff', the 'lore' for the guns, needs to differentiate them. The mechanics don't have to. Special weapons, firing modes, and the like? Can be based on the gun, and result in different effects without ever touching modifiers. "This grenade launcher can be used to fire IDF - its ODF drops to 40 (from 70) but cover no longer helps your opponant's ddf." A mechanic that works without changing how the dice are rolled, and can be included in the gun's desc without consulting a dozen charts. The die is still rolled the same way. But! It's just another way of looking at it. How much simulation you want, as opposed to abstraction - how much modifier dancing as opposed to streamlining. The trouble with modifiers is that they snowball - just like the tiers did. ---- I've got a Solan. Without using any of the level gained attributes, he's got one functional superb, 4 goods, two fairs. Starting from terrible and building up still lets you have working stats. Different systems go into raising attributes on OS:M and OS:NJ, so comparing the start points is worthless. The -2 will hurt you if you try to death dance with bullets, yeah, but it will be negated by taking cover. The -4 does the same thing as the 50 yd penalty without saying you can't do it. Well, since at fifty yards the smoothbore musket will probably veer widely in random directions, I'd take my chances standing where the legendary shot was aiming. Since MK19 shoots 40mm grenades with a kill radius of 5 meters and a casualty radius of 15 as I remember that fires a grenade a second or so, yeah, I think even at 50 meters, I'd take my chances with an idiot on that thing than a sniper on the smooth bore. The most dangerous thing would be the idiot letting the barrel drop and blowing himself up. Luckily, they're mounted on tripods with T&Es that keep them from doing that, so he could spend some time fiddling with that during the, let's say the guy with the musket is good, 15 seconds or so the other guy spends reloading. This isn't the point, though. This is just me being an ass. I'm not arguing that assault rifles can't be concealed. I like the fact that they are obvious. It's not a weapon meant for people to carry into bars with them. Even though the pistol isn't as good (not like it matters since no one, if we're going by OS:NJ engages in combat beyond short range where they are the same as far as modifiers go and have always done less damage) it has other advantages, like the ones you mentioned. I wouldn't say an M16 is all that similar to an AK47, and we can make them different weapons with slight differences to the modifiers which we couldn't do purely based on fluff and lore, but in the effort of keeping things simple we're not doing that. We're not consulting a dozen charts, either. There's pistol range modifiers. There's rifle range mods. And there might be sniper rifle range mods. And there might be sonic pistol range mods. That's still just four charts. Odin can make all for of them viewable with +sinfo ranges and on the weapon +vinfo which you'd have to look at for the fluff and lore and special firing modes and all that stuff which while doesn't necessarily change how dice are rolled still requires you to either memorize your stuff or look it up. If you want a combat system that involves more than +taskroll, compare rolls, compare odf to ddf, rinse, repeat there are going to be mods. Mods aren't the source of all evil. Bad mods are the source of all evil. A lack of mods is more indifference to complexity rather than some sort of divine truth. I know. There are a lot of views on this. It's kind of like religion, though, and there is generally no turning anyone from their pre-declared beliefs and this argument just kind of solidifies the opinions of the people not taking part rather than swaying anyone to a side. So, I think I'm done now. UrfOttoMouse 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ---- Pistols: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium: 0 Long: -2 Extreme: -6 Rifles: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium:+1 Long: 0 Extreme: -4 Original set of weapon mods mentioned. Close: 0-3 feet. This is also the range melee combat is assumed to take place at. Short: 4-20 feet. Medium: 21-100 feet. Long: 100-1000 feet. Extreme: 1000+ feet. Original ranges. I'm coming to not like these definitions. For the range mod definitions, in feet, tempted to go: Close: 0-3, Short: 4-20 Medium 20-50 Long: 50-200 Extreme 200-1000 For mods: Pistols: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium: 0 Long: -4 Extreme: -8 Rifles: Close: +1 Short: +1 Medium:+1 Long: -2 Extreme: -6 Sonic: Close: 1 Short: 0 Medium+: NA Sniper: Close: -2 Short: -1 Medium: 0 Long: 1 Extreme: 0 Don't quote me on those numbers as gospel yet, but I like most of the patterns there. I'm with Urf on this doctrine, and somehow I suspect, Ishmael, similar to how many of your beliefs are with the Church of Rar, Urf likely finds more solace in what's slowly becoming the Church of Odin. :> - We can talk about fluff all we want, sure, but here's the thing when I choose a weapon for my character, and I think many people feel similarly: I want the best bang for my skill point/credit. What we're trying to do here is make it so that 'best' becomes a question of 'what do I want to do?' and make different 'bests.' Are you a marine that has to do boarding ops? Probably an Automatic Energy Rifle kind of guy. Pretty low ODF for a gun, three shots a round, takes a full round just to power up, military weapon. Are you a civvy that lives on LT that just wants to stop some thief from breaking in and hang out in an area where energy weapons are suppressed? You're probably wanting a projectile pistol. Mid-range ODF, one shot a round. Right now on NJ? Unless you're a civvy on Sivad you go for an Mk6 because it's the best, bar none, find me a better weapon and I'll argue with ya. Anyway, going for the best weapon for a particular use is the act of a rational mind. Is such thing a 'min-max?' Maybe, but I don't think that's bad. Truth is, within certain constraints min-maxing shows signs of a player who cares about the game. Imagine playing, say, a gunslinger in Deadlands. Is it min-maxing to put your highest stat in deftness and low stats in things like smarts and intelligence? Arguably, yeah, but that just shows there's a rational player at work. Modifiers, yeah, not the source of evil. Bad mods are. And you say 'mods are in the GM's mind!' - What happens when two GMs with the same situation call drastically different mods? That's what guidelines are for. I'm trying to make the charts as easy as possible, and I'm trying to document this so we're on the same general page as a staff. Different mods mean different results very often. Imagine one staffer (the one at the scene) would call a roll to be, say, a -6, where another would have called a -4. Person rolls at -6, fails by one. This means the -6 ref rules it was a failure, where a -4 would have shown a success, with drastically different results. Are charts so evil compared to the debate that could take place afterwards? I think if they're kept light and there's documentation on /rationale/ behind mods, there's more likely to be same paged-ness. Sergeytov 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC) ---- Considering the possibility of adding disarm stuff into all this mess. Especially from a 'smart fighter' point of view. Basically before you roll, you declare your intent is to disarm the opponent. You roll the appropriate skill at -2, defender rolls normally. Success means no damage is done and the opponent is disarmed, failure means it misses, like normal. Probably restrict it to melee, though. Sergeytov 13:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Got some combat monkies made by some people OS:M side who are diligently helping test things on this front. First couple matches (all with at least one improved attribute relevant to combat): Zangali vs. Demarian, Zangali vs. Ungstiri - In both cases, the Zangali won, but the opponent had first blood. Big thing to note is that in the NJ system, the Zangali would have likely gotten away without any damage, but in this case took 13% and 10% damage respectively. Not enough to really hurt, but enough to be interesting. Reasons the Zangali won: *Higher strength: Each strike that did hit was doing more damage than the opponent. *Higher constitution: Each blow taken was being reduced by 50% *Wound modifiers: The Zangali took longer to get into neg-mods, where the other two could be there within two blows easily, the Zangali took about 4 hits before neg mods would exist. It is interesting, however, to note that this Zangali setup was easily wounded by a gunshot at long (100 feet) range, and would have had to spend at least a full round just getting to the target (a low dex). Sergeytov 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) ---- Disarm should be pretty much impossible with a ranged weapon. Even with a melee weapon, I think the attacker should be rolling at a -1 or -2 penalty, or the defender should get a bonus to the strength check like str at 1-1(magnitude of failure). The penalty for the attacker'd be easier, though. UrfOttoMouse 08:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) We'll see about a flat -2 to disarm for all weapons for now. I get the point about disarm at range, but I'm willing to let it slide just for simplicity. That and it'll put disarm into the 'special moves' like action cards anyway. Sergeytov 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC) ---- Another pondering I've been having: Perhaps it'd be a good idea to say those armed with ranged weapons can only dodge with dex in melee. Big reason is to explicitly stop the 'ranged weapon in melee/defend with MA' business seen over on NJ. Thoughts? Sergeytov 13:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Works for me. UrfOttoMouse 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I'm okay with it, but it depends if you want to allow some sort of gun-fu or not. But since you are not having multiple forms of unarmed combat - and thus no inherent advantage to martial arts, I'm not sure it's a big deal. And you might allow it if they're pistol whipping but not necessarily trying to shoot. But, I'd say that rifles and (perhaps?) pistols could be defended against with unarmed at close range without penalty as long as you're slapping/holding the weapon away from you. Varal 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) ---- A suggestion on mods: Pistols: +1/+1/0/-4/-6 Rifles 0/+1/+1/0/-4 ... The Rifle should have an advantage at range, the pistol up close, with the pistol finding a use in close combat, and the rifle not-so-much. Just a thought. Ishmael02 17:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)